Before the Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission,Lucknow
BEFORE THE UTTAR PRADESH ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION,LUCKNOW
Petition No.: 1191 / 2017
Quorum
1. ShriDesh Deepak Verma, Chairman
2. Shri S K Agarwal, Member
IN THE MATTER OF:
Petition for compliance of Hon’ble U.P.E.R.C order dated 6.2.2006
Petitioners
Air Force Naval Housing Board, Air Force Station, Race Course, New Delhi-110003
Versus
Respondents
Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., EUDC, A-1, Sector-16, Noida-201301
Noida Power Company Ltd. Commercial Complex, Block-H, Alpha-II, Sector Gr Noida-201310
ORDER
(Date of Hearing: July 24, 2017)
Air Force Naval Housing Board has filed petition no 1191 of 2017 in the matter of noncompliance of Hon’ble U.P.E.R.C order dated 6.2.2006 in Petition No. 293/2005 which was filed under clause 26 of UPERC (Conduct of Business Regulation) 2004 in order to provide electricity in said area.
The Hon’ble U.P.E.R.C order dated 6.2.2006 is as follows:-
“Air Force Naval Housing Board, Air Force, Race Course, New Delhi has filed a Petition no. 293/2005 under clause 26 of UPERC (Conduct of Business Regulation) 2004 for appropriate orders / directions for supply of electricity for 225 Nos of dwelling units / farm houses constructed by it in village Motipur, U.P.
In the hearing on 6.2.2006, AFNHB was represented by Shri M.K. Garg, Shri, I Annuar, Cdr. Y.K. Parashar and Air Cmde K.S Chhinn. PVVNL was represented by its Counsel Shri Amarjeet Singh Rakhra and Shri Vijay Kumar, EE, EDD, Noida. NPCL was represented by Shri Sanjeev Mathur, Manager, Operation.
PVVNL informed the Commission that the said village was not covered under rural electrification program. It also submitted to the Commission that as the cost of Rs. 51,05259 was to be borne in case it was to provide to electricity to petitioner and that the nearest point from which electricity could be provided to the petitioner was just about 2.5 Kms from the Network of NPCL, it was more feasible for NPCL to supply electricity to the petitioner. They also submitted that that they have no objection if the area in question (Motipur – village of the petitioner) and the adjoining 13 villages in which NPCL is presently supplying power though geographically located in PVVNL’s area, are transferred to NPCL for distribution purposes.NPCL submitted the difficulty in maintaining the individual connections and hand holding of new connections in Motipur village. The petitioner submitted that they have no objection in maintaining individual connections through the society in the village. Therefore the Commission granted the request of NPCL that supply to the said village may be provided at a single point to the society formed by AFNHB and that it would be the responsibility of the society to manage further distribution andmaintenance etc. to the village. The petitioner also agreed for providing metering of single point supply by NPCL on the other side of the river.
The Commission after hearing all the parties directed PVVNL to submit affidavit of No Objection for the said licence area in question being transferred to NPCL with a detailed map showing the boundary of the area to be transferred in consultation with NPCL within 10 days from the date of order. Further Commission directedNPCL to submit on affidavit of their acceptance of transfer of the said area within 10 days from the date of order. Licensees are to publish a notice with the details of the transfer of licensed area in two leading news papers. The petitioner should approach to NPCL for the electricity supply on single point with metering on the other side of river.
The Petition is disposed of.”
During the hearing on 6.7.2017, NPCL submitted that they have not received the copy of the petition.The Commission further finds that the petitioner has sought adjournment
The Commission directed thatthe petitioner may be instructed to provide the copy of the petition to the respondents within one week.
During the hearing on 24.07.2017, the Respondent (NPCL) was present, while PVVNL was absent. The Commission showed its displeasure and directed that Director(PVVNL) should be personally present in the next hearing, and should also explain as to why no one was present in the last two hearing and also why action should not been initiated against them under Section 142 of Electricity Act,2003.
The Petitioner submitted before the Commission that there is no electricity connection in Motipur Village and the Respondents have yet not complied the Commission’s order dated 6.02.2006. The Commission inquired NPCL as to why they are not complying with the order of the Commission.
NPCL submitted that they have yet not received the copy of the Petition inspite of the Commission directions to the Petitioner in the last hearing. Further they submitted that once they will receive it, they will submit in writing their difficulties in providing new connections in Motipur village, to which the Petitioner submitted that they will immediately hand over the copy of the Petition to NPCL.
NPCL also submitted that they have still not received No Objectionfrom PVVNL for the transfer of said licensed area to them and the licensee are also required to publish a notice in two leading newspaper with the details of transfer of said license area to NPCL.
NPCL further submitted that PVVNL being a necessary party in the present case,is equally responsible to provide electricity connection to the Petitioner as the Motipur village is geographically located in PVVNL area.
The Petitionerinformed the Commission during the hearing that half of the village area is electrified by NPCL, (as half of the Village Motipur is located on other side of the river Yamuna)therefore NPCL is responsible to give connection in other part of Village Motipur also.
The Commission observed that since half of the village area is electrified byNPCL; therefore only one discom is required to give connection to the whole village. Commission alsodirected to NPCL, meanwhile to be ready to provide electricity in the said area in accordance with the Commission’sprevious order, once PVVNL providesNOC to them.
The Petitioner also submitted during the hearing that the boundary of State of Haryana is very closeto their Village area Motipur, therefore the Commission advised that as an alternative arrangement, if the Petitioner desires, they may approach to Haryana Distribution Company also for taking electricity connection and the accounting of energy can be done by two discoms.
(S. K. Agarwal)
Member
/(Desh Deepak Verma)
Chairman
Place: Lucknow
Dated: 21.08.2017
Page 1 of 4